It's interesting how the New York Times and the Guardian all of sudden decided to publish what Chomsky says. 99% of their readers were probobly confused, as if they were supposed to know who this guy is the way the articles present him. Haha.. Chomsky denounced both the New York Times and Gaurdian for their articles on his comments about Hugo Chavez as "Extreme Dishonesty" and "Quite Deceptive".. Media Lens points out that: Quote: [TABLE] [TR] [TD="class: alt2"] [HR][/HR] Noam Chomsky was once famously described by the New York Times as 'arguably the most important intellectual alive'. And yet, as mentioned earlier, the Guardian is normally happy to ignore him and his views. But when Chomsky expresses criticism of an official enemy of the West, he suddenly does exist and matter for the Guardian. That indicates what we already knew: that the liberal press is perfectly aware of the importance of Chomsky's work. They just ignore it because it undermines the wrong interests. Rory Carroll's article is a wonderful glimpse of the kind of status Chomsky would enjoy if he promoted the myth of the basic benevolence of the West, and focused on the crimes of official enemies. He would be feted as one of the most insightful and brilliant political commentators the world had ever seen. He would be far and away the world's number one political talking head. His face would be all over the Guardian, the Observer, the Independent, the BBC, the New York Times and so on. 'Extreme Dishonesty' -- The Guardian, Noam Chomsky and Venezuela [HR][/HR] [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Chomsky added this article to his website addressing the issue.. Quote: [TABLE] [TR] [TD="class: alt2"] [HR][/HR] 'Extreme Dishonesty' -- The Guardian, Noam Chomsky and Venezuela The headline of last Sunday's Observer article on Venezuela set the tone for the slanted and opportunistic piece of political 'reporting' that followed: 'Noam Chomsky denounces old friend Hugo Chávez for "assault" on democracy'. http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20110706.htm [HR][/HR] [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Quote: [TABLE] [TR] [TD="class: alt2"] [HR][/HR] Joe Emersberger's Blog Chomsky Says UK Guardian Article "Quite Deceptive" About his Chavez Criticism UPDATE II: On July 6, 2011 the Guardian blinked again. On its website, it quietly changed the word "denounces" in the headline to Rory Carroll's article to "criticizes". It would take a much more drastic rework than that to make the article accurate but it's nice to see that they are feeling the heat. UPDATE: On July 4, 2011, the Guardian posted a transcript of Carroll's Q&A with Chomsky - as they should have in the first place. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...msky-venezuela According to Chomsky it looks accurate, and even before hearing back from Chomsky I could tell it "sounded", so to speak, way more like him than Rory Carroll's July 3 article. This is not the first time Rory Carroll has taken a highly selective interest in Chomsky's views on Latin America. When Chomsky signed an open letter in 2008 critical of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, Rory Carroll also jumped all over it. At about the same time, Chomsky signed an open letter to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe about far more grave matters but it was ignored by the Guardian. At the time, I asked Rory Carroll and his editors why they ignored it but they never replied to me. They also ignored an open letter to Uribe signed by Amnesty International, Human Rights watch and various other groups. I asked Carroll and his editors why that open letter was ignored and - as usual - no one responded.[1] There is clearly good reason not to trust Rory Carroll or the Guardian in their reporting about Venezuela, so I contacted Chomsky by email and asked him the following questions. His replies are below. Q: I've searched for a transcript of your remarks to the Observer online but not found one. Is it available to your knowledge? CHOMSKY: The Guardian/Observer version, as I anticipated, is quite deceptive. The report in the NY Times is considerably more honest. Both omit much of relevance that I stressed throughout, including the fact that criticisms from the US government or anyone who supports its actions can hardly be taken seriously, considering Washington’s far worse record without any of the real concerns that Venezuela faces, the Manning case for one, which is much worse than Judge Afiuni’s. And much else.There’s no transcript, unfortunately. I should know by now that I should insist on a transcript with the Guardian, unless it’s a writer I know and trust. Q: Do you think Venezuela is less democratic a society today than when Chavez was first elected in 1998? The impression given by the Carroll article is that you believe that the concentration of executive power that has taken place under Chavez has made it less democratic than 13 years ago. CHOMSKY: I don’t think so, and never suggested it. Q A recent study by Mark Weisbrot showed that the private media retains a 95% audience share in Venezuela. [2] Many have used that kind of statistic as a talking point to show that "free expression " has not been trampled under Chavez. However, in my view, it points to a major failure. Unelected media barons continue to dominate public debate - though not as much as in previous years. Would you agree with me or do you see things differently? CHOMSKY: A lot depends on what those media are. For example, Turkey now prides itself on at last allowing a Kurdish radio station, but I believe it mostly plays music. The way to deal with private media barons is not to suppress them but to develop publicly run media that have greater appeal. What follows is my translation of a Q&A with Chomsky that appeared in the Brazilian newspaper FOLHA. According to Chomsky it provided a much better representation of his views than both the Guardian and the New York Times. http://www.zcommunications.org/choms...oe-emersberger [HR][/HR] [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Thread started at Forum 4 Politics on 04-14-2012 10:49 AM
Venezuela's Catholic Church says gov't. is dictatorship... Venezuela's Catholic Church says political crisis is 'real situation of dictatorship' Dec. 30, 2016 -- The Catholic Church leadership in Caracas, Venezuela, said the ruling government's failure to recognize the opposition-controlled National Assembly represents "a real situation of dictatorship."
U.S. Congress proposes sanctions for Venezuela corruption... US lawmakers propose sanctions for Venezuela food corruption Jan 23,`17 -- Venezuelan officials may face U.S. sanctions for profiting from food shortages that have exacerbated hunger in the South American country.
Anti-Corruption efforts in So. America shines spotlight on two politicians... Venezuela probing allegations of $100M bribes under Chavez, Maduro Jan. 26, 2017 -- Venezuela's Chief Prosecutor Luisa Ortega Díaz on Thursday said the Public Ministry launched an investigation into accusations officials under late former President Hugo Chavez and his replacement Nicolas Maduro received nearly $100 million in bribes from Brazilian company Odebrecht. See also: Ex-billionaire Eike Batista targeted in Brazil corruption probe Jan. 26, 2017 -- Brazilian authorities on Thursday began an operation seeking the arrest of nine people, including former billionaire Eike Batista, related to the Petrobras corruption scandal.
